Appeal No. 1998-2173
Application No. 08/829,620
column, lines 29-37 and right-hand column, lines 38-42).
Olsen does not describe the butt end 2 of the shingle, i.e.,
the end having the asphalt and granule coating, as being
darker in color than the thin end 3. When viewed in the
context of Olsen’s description of the invention, it appears
that the Figure 1 depiction actually portrays a difference in
texture between the uncoated thin end 3 and the coated butt
end 2, not a difference in color as suggested by the examiner.
Thus, even if a designer of ordinary capability in the art
would have been motivated to apply an asphalt and granule
coating to half of the exposed face of the shingle taught by
Bird, it is not a certainty that the resulting shingle would
have had an exposed face with light and dark areas as claimed
by appellants.
We also agree with appellants’ argument that Bird and
Olsen do not collectively teach or suggest the appearance of
a two-layered shingle, including upper and lower layers having
a pair of coplanar edges of comparable length presenting a
squared off appearance and a visible break line between the
upper and lower layers (answer, pages 13 and 14) as seen in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007